Monday, November 29, 2010

I have to say, I was rather amused to discover that Suzan Cooke is ranting about me again. I seem to be one of her favorite obsessions sometimes. Granted, I have taken her on more than a few times myself.

But, I want to correct a few errors in her post....

First off, she brings up an unfortunate throw-away line I posted on a web site I threw together some years ago...

It was there that I first encountered someone who considers herself to be “True/Classic Transsexual” and can always be depended upon to trash TG folks,. Only in those days she wasn’t so certain about herself. Indeed. Her self description was, “More than a transvestite and less than a transsexual.”

First off, it was actually my therapists who considered me to be a "True/Classic Transsexual." Second, it is true that I disagree strongly with the TG view. And I am not shy about speaking out against it. Now, as I said, I did use that line on a web site I threw together. It was back in the earlier days of the web, when vanity sites were all the rage. And it was also during a difficult time i in my life.

I had actually transitioned a few years earlier. I met with a therapist, who quickly diagnosed me as a "transsexual." I was treated by a endocrinologist who had studied with Harry Benjamin. And a couple of years into my transition, for reasons that actually had little to do with my transition, or with whether or not I was transsexual, I came very close to what could be called a nervous breakdown. At that time, some issues related to my transition, along with the other problems (most financial) pushed me to the breaking point.

I could not deal with everything, and one morning, in something of a panic, I decided to de-transition, primarily to find some amount of relief from what was overwhelming me. Quite simply, at that time it was the only thing I had control over. I quickly convinced myself that it was the right thing to do, and over the next seven years I struggled to find myself.

At first, I tried to deny true self completely. That did not last long. Then I tried to convince myself that I could find a middle ground. That was the point at which I wrote that inane comment. The modern transgender silliness had not quite caught on, though there were early bits of it online. I actually tended to argue with the more extreme proponents, who were just beginning to formulate their efforts to "deconstruct gender."

Simply put, I knew I was not a transvestite, but I didn't want to admit that I really was a transsexual. I knew what admitting I was transsexual would mean. But, as I looked inward, the truth became clear. I sought out a new therapist (my previous one had contributed to my near breakdown) and I began to deal with who, and what, I was. I also took my time. My first transition had been a bit spontaneous, and I rushed into it with no planning.

I took my time. I planned. And then I made my move. I changed my name on a Monday, spent Tuesday getting my paperwork in order, and on Wednesday I went out and found a job. I was prepared for the changes that would come, and I survived. It was not easy, but I was focused. Over time, I came to grips with issues like my sexuality (I am a straight woman) and I moved across country to San Francisco. I found a good job here, got my surgery, and my life is vastly improved.

No, it has not been with problems. But, and this is what is really important, I have been able to handle things without falling apart. When I was pretending to be a male, I could not do that. The least obstacle seemed insurmountable. I would often go to pieces over things that I would now laugh off. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

Another thing that needs to be corrected.... I hate no one. I object to the silliness that is spewed by transgender extremists, including Suzan Cooke, but I had no one. That would be contrary to my faith, which I am not ashamed of.

Also, I would like to remind people that I do not censor comments unless they contain personal attacks, usually against others. I won't tolerate the invasion of my privacy, or that of anyone else, but beyond that I am not afraid of what someone might have to say. In fact, the vast majority of comments censored here have been ads for Asian porn sites. That is not acceptable, and will be removed.

And let me address one final error. Cooke makes the following statement:

As a result I have several people who devote an inordinate amount of time to trashing me for not wanting to be part of their “Classic Transsexual/HBS” club.

No, that is not really the case at all. First off, I would be absolutely appalled if Cooke suddenly chose to embrace such a view. Cooke's doing so would be one of the worst things that could happen. Cooke is, quite honestly, an egotistical kook who thinks that she is remotely relevant in the world today. Sadly, she has a few who share that delusion, and who continue to stroke her ego because they imagine she is some arbiter of veracity. I will admit, at one time I shared that delusion myself. Then I realized Cooke is to be pitied, rather than feared. She is clinging to a largely imagined past where she was the alpha transsexual. Now, she is trying to relive those glory days, and failing miserably.

No, I, and others, speak out against Cooke because she has embraced the silliness of the transgender extremists. It really isn't about Cooke, but is about the idiocy that Cooke has come to endorse. Most of the time I just have a sad laugh at Cooke's extremist rants. The Sixties are past, the Weathermen are gone, and for good or bad, the country is going back to the Right.

Extremism, of any sort, tends to wind up being an effort in futility. Demanding outrageous concessions is only going to end in valiant defeat. Unfortunately, some prefer that to accomplishing something through concession.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

I never cease to be amazed by the obsession that the transgender crowd has for the ladies room. And now, everyone's favorite bigot, Monica Roberts, has a new rant on Bilerico about some transgender getting caught in the women's bathroom in Houston, Texas. Of course, this is going to create a perfect storm of trans-insanity given that this is the home of Phillip "Phyllis" Frye, who is never shy about seeking publicity. And who often just makes things worse.

Alas, Texas conservatism is running head on into the relatively liberal nature of Houston (they have a lesbian mayor) and the end result will probably not be good.

But the fact is, it really is very simple. Whether you are pre-op, or a transgender, if you don't assimilate as woman (I don't like the term pass when applied to a transsexual, though it is appropriate if one is talking about a transgender) reasonably well, then avoid using the ladies room until you do. When I was in transition, I didn't do what the transgender crowd now insists is their right. I did not just march into the nearest women's room. I built up slowly. I would seek out a restroom I knew would likely be empty and hopefully as isolated as possible. As I became more confident that I was perceived as a woman, I started using more public restrooms. I never once has a problem in the ladies room, though the last time I went in a men's room I freaked some poor guy out.

Simply put, if you don't care how you are perceived, and think you have some right to use the ladies room because you are dressed as a woman, you really don't belong there. I wasn't so much scared of being caught, as I was thinking about the feelings of my fellow women. People like Monica Roberts, and the vast majority of transgender activists, don't share that value. And that says a lot about their true nature.

Note: I found a video of the person in question, and this personis not credible as a "woman." Also, it should be noted that Texas has a law that specifically outlaws going into a restroom reserved for the opposite sex. The mayor in Houston has issued an executive order that is in conflict with state law. This is probably going to be a train wreck.

Monday, November 15, 2010

There is an ancient Greek fable, sometime attributed to Aesop, about a dog lying in a manger who could not eat the hay but who nevertheless prevented the other animals from being able to eat it either. It is used as an idiom for someone who has no use for something, but seeks to prevent another from using it as well.

"Autumn" Sandeen has established himself as a classic example of a Dog in the Manger. In his most recent diatribe on Pam's House Blend he complains about how his ex-wife, who apparently has nothing to do with him, is seeking an annulment of their marriage from the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, for those who are not familiar with the practices of Catholicism, if one is divorced, and wishes to have their marriage sanctified by the sacrament of marriage in the Church, then the only choice is to have the previous marriage annulled. There are certain situations where the church will hold that the previous marriage was not properly entered into, and the annulment is granted.

Most often, the grounds for the annulment is that one or both of the parties was too immature to enter into a valid sacrament of marriage. Other grounds can include mental illness, a lack of intention to stay faithful or have children, deception and some other very technical reasons.

The simple, bottom line is, Mr. Sandeen's wife should have no problem getting such a decree. But he is not willing for this to happen. He intends to challenge his wife's effort. Now, he claims that part of the reason is that he does not want his children from the marriage, who will have nothing to do with him, to be made "illegitimate." However, a church annulment does not do that, legally, or in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. He would have some claim to that if this were a legal proceeding, but not in this case.

No, the obvious reason his ex-wife would seeks an annulment is that she plans to remarry (or perhaps has already remarried) and wishes to have the church recognize the new marriage as sacramental.

And, just as obviously, Mr. Sandeen's ONLY real reason for opposing the annulment is to spite his wife, and perhaps is also a vain attempt to prevent her from being able to remarry. Of course, there is no way that the church is going to deny the marriage. His silly little tantrum is going to do nothing but given ignorant people another bit to use against transsexuals (though ironically, Mr. Sandeen is not remotely actually a transsexual.

Mr. Sandeen is one of those men who, sometime during puberty, developed a fetish for wearing women's clothes, with no real evidence of gender issues prior to that, who then, after a long period of living as a successful male, decides to take his little fetish to the next level, and became full time. Then, he decided he would be a transsexual to gain higher standing as a "transgender."

Mr. Sandeen shows no desire to simply live as a woman. He is an "out, loud, and proud" transgender. He makes sure anyone and everyone knows his history, and in the past made it clear he had no desire to give up his penis. He now claims to be surgery tracked, though he also tends to indicate that he will have surgery only when he can have it paid for. In truth, I am sure if he does get it covered, he will find another excuse.

And adding to the silliness of Mr. Sandeen's claims is the comment by "Zoe Brain" the self-acclaimed "rocket scientist" who asserts, rather bizarrely that Mr. Sandeen's marriage was a "same-sex one, despite the fact that children resulted." Now, that is ridiculous. Mr. Sandeen had, and still has a penis. His wife had a vagina, ovaries, and a uterus. They had children, that were conceived from Mr. Sandeen's sperm, and his wife's eggs. To remotely suggest such a marriage was a "same sex one" is totally false. I guess they must have pretty low standards to be a "rocket scientist" down under.

Mr. Sandeen should be ashamed of acting so cruelly towards his ex-wife. He should just let her seek her annulment, ignore it all, and go on with is little fantasies. Seeking to deny her the ability to remarry is simply his being a dog in the manger.

About Me

Copyright Notice

All original content of this blog is copyright 2017 by J.U. and all rights are reserved.

Comment Policy

Just so there is no confusion, and to make sure that certain gender fascists cannot make false claims, I want to make clear my policy concerning comments. The only rule, and it is a hard and fast one, is "NO INVASIONS OF PRIVACY!" That is, if you post information about me, such as my name, or other private information, your post will not see the light of day. After having a couple of rather nasty trolls try to get around this, I have had to do something I really dislike. Because Blogger does not allow me to block individuals, I now have to approve all comments. But, if your comment does not violate the one rule, it will be approved. So please, don't go running to someone and claim you were censored...especially someone with an established history of censoring posts to prevent actually having to defend his silliness...